Central Information Commission
Anand Singh Chauhan vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 15 December, 2021
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/DOP&T/A/2020/127524
Anand Singh Chauhan ......अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Department of Personnel &
Training, RTI Cell, North Block,
Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15/12/2021
Date of Decision : 15/12/2021
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25/07/2019
CPIO replied on : 30/07/2019
First appeal filed on : 25/06/2020
First Appellate Authority order : 24/07/2020
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 01/09/2020
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 25.07.2019 seeking information as follows:
".......Whether BRDB (Border Road Development Board) and BRO (Border Road Organization) is same Organization under MoD. As per Sub Section (2) of Section 24 of RTI Act, 2005 BRDB is included in the Second Schedule of RTI Act 2005, Whether the BRO also falls under the Second Schedule of RTI Act 2005."
The CPIO replied to the appellant on 30.07.2019 stating as follows:-
"Copy of list of organization which are under Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005 is annexed. Further, your RTI application has already transferred to M/o. Defence by RTI -Cell of this Department."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.06.2020. FAA's order dated 24.07.2020 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Pawan Kumar, US & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant stated that he has not received the desired information till date from DoPT or from MoD instead he was provided with the list of the Second Schedule of the RTI Act.
At this point, the Commission remarked upon a perusal of the written submissions sent by the Appellant prior to the hearing that in an earlier appeal filed vide File No.CIC/BRDOR/A/2020/127522, a coordinate bench had adjudicated on the same RTI query wherein Border Road Organization was itself the Respondent.2
The Appellant explained that the RTI Application under reference upon its transfer to MoD was further forwarded to BRDB and eventually to BRO after generating a new registration number, and the earlier appeal was decided with regard to the same. He argued that there is discrepancy in the information provided by the public authorities as the BRO claims it is an exempt organization even though it is not listed in the Second Schedule and only BRDB is listed therein. He furthermore argued that even where corruption or human rights violation is alleged, BRO does not provide any information and challenged the exemption status granted to BRO stating that all public authorities will take refuge to Section 24 in this manner and therefore the purpose of the RTI Act will be defeated.
Upon concluding the hearing, the Appellant prayed for the matter to be placed before a full bench of the Commission.
Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record finds no scope of action in the matter with respect to the information that has been sought for in the RTI Application as well as the reply of the CPIO provided thereon as the query raised by the Appellant do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has sought for clarification, interpretation and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO based on a speculative query.
The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
In this regard, his attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' 3 or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act." (Emphasis Supplied) Further, it is pertinent to note that the issues raised by the Appellant during the hearing questioning the veracity of the inclusion of BRO under the exempt list of organisations under Section 24 of the RTI Act are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Commission under the RTI Act and the superior Courts have made observations to this effect in a catena of judgments over the course of time.
In particular, reference may be had of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate fora. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."(Emphasis Supplied) While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the 4 Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) And, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Income Tax Officer vs. Gurpreet Kaur (W.P.[C] 2113/2019) dated 21.10.2019 has placed reliance on the aforesaid observation of the Apex Court in Namit Sharma's case to emphasize as under:
"8. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the powers of the Commission are confined to the powers as stated in the RTI Act...."
In view of the foregoing observations, no action is warranted with respect to the information provided by the CPIO.
Moreover, the coordinate bench has also dealt with the same RTI query in File No. CIC/BRDOR/A/2020/127522 on 01.12.2021 wherein the reply of BRO informing the Appellant that BRO is the executive arm of BRDB and stands exempted under Section 24 of the RTI Act was found to be in order.
Having observed as above, this bench finds the instant Appeal as well as the request of the Appellant to place the instant case before a full bench as bereft of merit.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 5